WHAT IF...

Every time I decide to express my doubt about some established 'fact', a lot of people with the 'firm belief' tries to persuade me that my doubtful conclusions are utterly impossible. But what does that 'firm belief' consist of? Some have read, heard or learned about some 'fact' that some expert with some learned knowledge (and some putative research) has put in an article, a book or his personal theory (along with his personal subjective state of mind).

It's not about me loving to doubt every 'firmly established fact', but about some things, facts that are often - due to lack of complete set of details - presented in a misguided perspective, causing experts to come to wrong conclusions that don't quite 'hold water'. These tiny 'leaky holes' in their conclusions tend to raise my doubts, every time I come across them. Medicine, for example, is full of them (and other sciences too). It has shown me (personally) quite some errors and misbeliefs it later officially decided to refute by itself.

We often look on old medicine some five hundred (or more) years ago with underestimation – how wrong they were with many of their 'modern' findings? They just didn't have all the technology and didn't know all the details then that we do now. But this seems all too similar as generational differences in families – our kids see us as we saw our parents – conservative and at least old-fashioned. And not to mention the grandparents. And the same will happen with our grandkids, and next generations. Why should there be any difference in science like medicine? Science often finds some previous claims (even laws) to be later found as wrong or misled. Our descendants will undoubtedly find a lot of our contemporary findings in medicine wrong, misled, misguided. But today we seem so certain about our contemporary science. The conclusions our science makes, are 100% solid, in spite of some 'mysterious unexplainable' small particulars or 'phenomena'. Like some ‘atypical' types of disease for example?

But there are some things that do ‘hold water’. Basically they coincide with the Laws of Nature and have ‘held water’ through generations, species, centuries; not merely last few hundred years. What if ...?

What if germs (viruses, bacteria and other forms) are not really on a killing spree to destroy us and all the living force and energy? Can there really be such a numerous powerful force in the world that thrives on promoting dead, lifeless instead of living, energetic? Well, actually there are examples - in the short term. As in the long term such organism (or organization) is unable to subsist indefinitely as it ineffectively destroys all its resources. Nature constantly shows us to favor effectiveness, constant optimization, adaptation to changing environment – natural selection as one of them. Obviously Nature and everything that it consists of, promotes life, energy, growth, evolution and optimization. Every living being seems to belong and be a part of something larger, powerful and has a specifically delegated task, a meaning – in Nature’s ‘big picture’, our Ecosystem.

What if these germs are only executing their given task in our Ecosystem – removing, decomposing (and returning to useful state) all dead, waste matter?

What if germs merely subject to one of the principal laws of Nature’s Ecosystem? That particular species can only exist when their food/work/reason to exist is sufficient to support the survival of that species? And that any species can actually exuberate only if their living conditions (food/work/reason to exist) are abundant?

What if only we are in the ‘Holy war’ with germs and are actually only harming ourselves? Like some slogan “We don’t care about the waste, let’s get rid of cleaners”.

What if there are no bad and good bacteria, but only ones doing their part in the Ecosystem? If a specific type (of any bacteria for that matter) only appears when there's specific type of material (waste or other forms of matter, perhaps food we ingest) that they thrive on, present in our body - and they are not attacking us?

What if germs occurrence is merely a symptom, a consequence, and actually not a cause of an inflammation and medicine is wrong with its common symptomatic approach?

What if some type of inflammation in our body is the previous cause for dead cells and toxic waste to compound and raise the living and working conditions for a specific type of bacteria to appear in order to do their given task – process that matter? If the only reasonable action would be to support the cleaners with transporting the by-products of their cleaning – their own waste, excretion - out of our bodies? If dried mucous membranes and lymph drainage can pose an additional problem to that? If we need rehydrate these with proper foods and fluids?

What if, for example, cancer is actually not a disease (at least not in the form we are led to see it)? Why so many bodily functions and systems - immune system and others - seem to cooperate and help cancer instead to fight it? And why does autoimmune disease definition seems not to ‘hold water’ but appear more as inability to see all the details of the equation to be fully able come to a solid conclusion? Some contemporary research studies lead to recognize cancer as an extension of our natural body processes, our immune system’s mechanisms to isolate toxic waste and an ultimate attempt to save the body.

And now two blasphemic ‘whatifs’:
What if Pasteur was wrong after all? What if he even admitted that?
Please note that I used 'what if' – I did found some studies claiming that, but these are just claims after all. A final decision on 'holding water' is up to an individual.

What if most of our germs came within our bodies?
German scientist dr. Enderlein published some research papers on ‘protits’ in 1921 and 1925.
»Protits are tiny dots in the blood and cells that you can apparently see with any microscope. These dots or colloids of life are virtually indestructible and survive even after the body dies. According to the phenomenon known as 'pleomorphism', these 'protits' develop or change form in response to a changing condition (acid/base balance) of the blood or cell milieu. As the cell's environment becomes acidic and toxic, the 'protits' turn into microorganisms that are designed to break down and remove dead cells, toxins and metabolic waste-products that the body is unable to remove. If further destruction of dead, weak cells and other waste is required, 'protits' become viruses and, eventually, fungi.
...most doctors assume that the germs come from the outside, but this assumption is unproved (and was even disputed by Louis Pasteur himself, who invented the germ theory). As the brilliant scientists Bechamp and Enderlein demonstrated, these germs are created inside the cells in response to the presence of toxic waste material that the body is unable to remove.« -Andreas Moritz.

Too many ‘What ifs’ for you?
No problem, you just have to start striking the ones that undoubtedly can’t ‘hold water’ for you. All written above is only my personal standpoint, after all.

Thanks a lot for taking your time and reading my post! If you found this article interesting, please upvote and resteem. I'd love to hear your thoughts, but I don't give a f* about comments from those who don't want to liberate their own brain (and instead chose the blue pill).
If you like this, you are welcome to check my other posts.

------------------------------
X-Sample...